Your proposal will not be accepted by the CMP.
For the same reason I don't backstab, I don't use these either. Unless the conductors are short in the box and I can not use a wire nut.
Pigtail all devices proposal
- Thread starter Cletis
- Start date
- Status
Your proposal will not be accepted by the CMP.
For the same reason I don't backstab, I don't use these either. Unless the conductors are short in the box and I can not use a wire nut.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
- Occupation
- EC
Go ahead and submit your proposal, I'm not a gambler but may put money on this one not getting accepted.
What is the real safety hazard presented by losing power to everything downstream? This happens with almost any failure at points other then receptacles, and switches are supposed to open the circuit from downstream components so there is "a failure of downstream components" whether the switch connection fails, the switch contacts fail, there are mechanical problems with the switch, or just normal operation opens the contacts.
These were used long time ago and their faults are small contact area and low retention force. I am not sure but I think you can still uses these, even though I have not seen anyone use them lately.
View attachment 11400
View attachment 11400
Watch this video. Wago 222 under extreme load (100 amps) and still doesn't fail. Will a receptacle do this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg6VPucscxI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg6VPucscxI
Last edited:
Well, I do personally know 5 people on the committee and I am a member of the IEC so at least I may have a slight chance in this one...
One example, is when the extension cords start getting brought out and draped everywhere, second is when installers put the receptacle and lighting on same cir. losing lighting to a house (that is a hazard and i've seen it many times myself) and they start burning candles everywhere. That's 2 to start and i'm sure I can come up with some more later
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
- Occupation
- EC
I used to use those a lot for taps from branch circuit conductors to fluorescent luminaires in continuous rows of lighting or similar situations. You are generally only depending on them to only carry maybe .5 to 1 amp of current to the luminaire. I could see a higher failure rate if depending on them to carry full branch circuit rating. Can not recall ever running into any failures on ones that only carried current to one luminaire.
Like I said earlier - breaker failure or other reasons being the reason outlets don't work - what is to stop same people from running extension cords? I've maybe even done that myself if I needed power now and didn't have time to find out what the problem is.
Lighting and receptacles on same circuit - you are dealing with different code sections that would need changes and not so much backstabbing or other connection methods.
Last edited:
Well, I'm just saying, from 1000's and 1000's of residential service calls over the years the #1 reason for loss of power on a circuit is receptacle device failure (i'd guess 80%), #2 is just a bad splice somewhere (18%), waaay down the list is a bad breaker (i'd say 2% of the time) for loss of power. This is just a guess from all those jobs. I'm just trying to reduce the risk and fire hazard and I think this amendment would help immensely without much added time or money at install.
K8MHZ
Senior Member
- Occupation
- Electrician
I see that drywall installers burying boxes and severing NM runs didn't even make your list.
We must live in different worlds.
We quit doing new construction around 13-15yrs ago when the bottom dropped out and the money wasn't there, but, when we do kitchen/Basement remodels and the like on occasion, we take pics so when the drywallers bury things we find immediately before we energize most of time so that's not even a problem anyhow. When we rough, we make sure the hots are folded back and not touching anything so worst case we flip breaker and certain things don't come on then we start looking for a buried box.
growler
Senior Member
- Location
- Atlanta,GA
I understand what you are saying but you are not showing a direct connection between the use of back stabbed devices and residential fires.
If you can show that the back stabbed devices are actually causing the fires you may have something.
This thread actually has nothing to do with backstabbing devices (although I think it should be banned), it's about using a receptacle as a pass through source. this thread has been skewed a bit...
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
- Occupation
- EC
And when you include all receptacles instead of just feed thru via backstabbing, you likely get even lower percentage that possibly start fires.
Interruption of service is not considered a life or property hazard on general purpose circuits. That "glowing connection" that may result is supposed to be in an approved junction/outlet box that should keep this from spreading to other surrounding combustibles if other sections of the NEC are followed. When fires do start there often is other complications that contribute, and even other code violations issues.
Critical purpose circuits could and some do have certain rules that apply whether by NEC or other applicable codes that are intended to increase reliability.
growler
Senior Member
- Location
- Atlanta,GA
If you use the terminal strip screws on a receptacle ( standard type) then you are not passing through the device. It works the same as any other terminal strip.
In the UK they believe this is much safer than useing wire nuts and only allow connections by terminal strips ( everyone has a different opinion). They do make their receptacles a little more heafty and they cost more.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
- Occupation
- EC
Last winter I did work on a home after a fire. This fire was believed to have started in an receptacle outlet. I was there after fire investigator came to this conclusion and don't know what was disturbed before I seen it, but the receptacle in question - I found no signs of a box whatsoever - there either was none or it was non metallic and completely destroyed in the fire. Most receptacles in this house were backstab connected, but were not when I finished, but that was my choice not a requirement.
Curious nerd
Member
- Location
- Washington State, USA
Yes, at least if it's of the same quality level as the one the guy on Electriciantalk tested. Pix and numbers at http://www.electriciantalk.com/f2/4-screws-vs-pigtailing-71565/index4/#post1330545
- Location
- Placerville, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Retired PV System Designer
But it does not show feed through test on backstabs.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
- Occupation
- EC
Since you can't seem to google one I did
, but sorry didn't find a test/result. Did come up with several forum discussions both professional and DIY, and this thread was also in the results.hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Yes it has but the truth of that matter is that all 15 and 20 amp receptacles are UL listed for 20 amps pass through and as long as two or more receptacles are on a circuit the code allows a 15 amp receptacle on a 20 amp circuit, a duplex receptacle is two receptacles by the definition in the NEC article 100.
The only time code does not allow you to use the receptacle or any device for that matter is where a multi-wire branch circuit is run into and out of the receptacle box and this is because of the neutral not the current carrying capacity of the pass-through (see 300.13(B), EGC's also can not be passed through a receptacle or switch for the same reason as if the device is removed it will leave other devices without a EGC or fault path (See 250.148(B) ).
Like I said before this is a design choice not a safety problem, and again like I said we don't need the NEC designing how we are allowed to run our wires as long as it is not a safety issue as like was said as long as other parts of the NEC are followed the issue of a screw or back-stab connection going bad will not be an issue safety wise.
I wonder how many even take the time to torque the screws to the manufactured level? bet not many, sure some cheapo receptacles have screws so soft that you would cam-out the screw head or strip the threads out before even reaching the required torque setting, but you get what you pay for, this was a big problem with some cheapo China made GFCI's.
JDB3
Senior Member
- Location
- San Antonio, Texas
If you want to pigtail everything, why not, just propose that all wires have to be looped through the box (no pigtails, no splices, etc.). That way we can spend even more time on the job,& charge more (because it will "look" "more" professional).
Years ago (helper then), the owner/boss-man, sent us to a friends home that the friend was wiring, but ran into problems. Looked great at first. Wired everything so gas or electric could be used for heat, appliances, etc. The owner had looped the romex through the boxes (sounds good, right). BUT when he reached the end of the 250 foot coil, he "joined the wire between the studs with wirenuts only" (NO j-box, would be behind the wall covering ) :jawdrop:
Years ago (helper then), the owner/boss-man, sent us to a friends home that the friend was wiring, but ran into problems. Looked great at first. Wired everything so gas or electric could be used for heat, appliances, etc. The owner had looped the romex through the boxes (sounds good, right). BUT when he reached the end of the 250 foot coil, he "joined the wire between the studs with wirenuts only" (NO j-box, would be behind the wall covering ) :jawdrop:
- Status